Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?No..plane hit wtc 7
that's not the point. when you say" no plane" hit wtc7 you are trying and failing to infer that nothing other than your imagined explosives did in wtc7 .but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?No..plane hit wtc 7
NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damage the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence
bullshit! no they were not! Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash'The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes
5:28PM BST 11 Sep 2001
A COMBINATION of catastrophic events caused the downfall of the towering landmark that was built to withstand plane crashes.
The twin towers of the World Trade Centre have gazed out over Manhattan, head and shoulders above most other New York Buildings, for three decades. The revolutionary structures, each 110 storeys high, were built to withstand tremendous pressures and had already survived a 1993 terrorist bombing.
But the immense steel columns in the core - and around the perimeter supporting the enormous buildings - were not enough to prevent them slipping down into a rising fog of dust and debris which engulfed the streets around the city's financial district.
Plans for a world trade facility had been under consideration for many years, but momentum gathered in the late 50s with a site being finally fixed in 1962. The ground-breaking ceremony began four years later and the first tenants moved into one of the towers by the end of 1970, although the building had not been completed. They were declared officially open on April 4 1973.
British consulting engineer Professor Alastair Soane said today: "They were extremely robust buildings and built to withstand a tremendous amount.
"But this was of course a completely abnormal situation and one which would not have been envisaged by the people who built it. The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes.Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash' - Telegraph
but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?No..plane hit wtc 7
NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence
it's really fucking disingenuous (lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness)for you to use the nist report to bolster your fantasy!
some friendly advice, whenever a twoofer makes or uses terms like "The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes "bullshit! no they were not! Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash'The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes
5:28PM BST 11 Sep 2001
A COMBINATION of catastrophic events caused the downfall of the towering landmark that was built to withstand plane crashes.
The twin towers of the World Trade Centre have gazed out over Manhattan, head and shoulders above most other New York Buildings, for three decades. The revolutionary structures, each 110 storeys high, were built to withstand tremendous pressures and had already survived a 1993 terrorist bombing.
But the immense steel columns in the core - and around the perimeter supporting the enormous buildings - were not enough to prevent them slipping down into a rising fog of dust and debris which engulfed the streets around the city's financial district.
Plans for a world trade facility had been under consideration for many years, but momentum gathered in the late 50s with a site being finally fixed in 1962. The ground-breaking ceremony began four years later and the first tenants moved into one of the towers by the end of 1970, although the building had not been completed. They were declared officially open on April 4 1973.
British consulting engineer Professor Alastair Soane said today: "They were extremely robust buildings and built to withstand a tremendous amount.
"But this was of course a completely abnormal situation and one which would not have been envisaged by the people who built it. The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes.Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash' - Telegraph
Hmm...maybe I spoke too soon.
but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. Your point?
nist determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence
ask and answerd.nist determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence
so are you agreeing or disagreeing with NIST ?
ask and answerd.
so are you agreeing or disagreeing with nist ?
Like i said you using the report is disingenuous as everybody knows you don't!
Has anyone ever answered this loaded question of yours? I'm betting that you've asked it AT LEAST 20 times.ask and answerd.so are you agreeing or disagreeing with nist ?
Like i said you using the report is disingenuous as everybody knows you don't!
so you think nist got it wrong ?
No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???
There is some truth to EOTS statement...however the theory is that the planes on an approach to La Gardia (SP?) would be on their final approach and moving at a slower speed than they were on 9/11, that the fuel would be depleted. No calculation was made for fireproofing in the face of aircraft impact.
Additionally, the towers did withstand the plane impact. The fire is what brought them down so EOTS, as always, is dealing in 1/2 truths.
The hypothesis of fire destroying 3 buildings with collapse times just under freefall acceleration has never been proven.
BTW airports are designed to accommodate aircraft landing as well as taking off with various speeds, and the "jet fuel" was consumed in the initial explosions and ensuing fireballs.
There is some truth to EOTS statement...however the theory is that the planes on an approach to La Gardia (SP?) would be on their final approach and moving at a slower speed than they were on 9/11, that the fuel would be depleted. No calculation was made for fireproofing in the face of aircraft impact.
Additionally, the towers did withstand the plane impact. The fire is what brought them down so EOTS, as always, is dealing in 1/2 truths.
The hypothesis of fire destroying 3 buildings with collapse times just under freefall acceleration has never been proven.
BTW airports are designed to accommodate aircraft landing as well as taking off with various speeds, and the "jet fuel" was consumed in the initial explosions and ensuing fireballs.
You're lying on 2 counts. The buildings did not fall at free fall speed, it was a larger amount of tiem.
NIST coincides at least several seconds of the collapse was at free fall speed
Secondly, the fuel set fires on several floors below the impact sites so you're being untruthful about that as well.
Same Old Ms. Jones.
there where fires beneath the impact..where also people standing in the impact hole waving for help and firefighters who made it to the 79th floor
Has anyone ever answered this loaded question of yours? I'm betting that you've asked it AT LEAST 20 times.ask and answerd.
Like i said you using the report is disingenuous as everybody knows you don't!
so you think nist got it wrong ?
It's easy for someone to poke holes in any explanation of an event. Especially if the event wasn't planned and those trying to put the pieces together have to do so without all of the details.
I believe that the official verson, while not perfect, is the closest one to reality. I believe that IF the government had planned this event, they would have done a much better job at faking it and they'd have their explanation water tight. The fact that they did not makes me think that they were just as surprised as we were.
After the fact, people have come forward with reasons why it couldn't have happened the way the government said it did. They show what they believe is evidence that something couldn't have happened the way it did. they get together with others who might have what THEY call proof that some other part of the official version was wrong and they claim that the whole thing was faked.
Earlier in this thread I asked what people believed actually happened. i found out that nobody has an actual explanation for what happened, they simply have the opinion that it didn't happen the way the government said it did. If someone was to come up with their version, I'll be a dollar to a donut that someone else could poke holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.
I haven't heard anything that makes me think that the government planned this or that anyone but Osama Bin Laden planned this. Do I think that the government's explanation is air tight? No, and I wouldn't expect it to be. We can argue forever about why one thing or another could or couldn't have happened but until someone comes up with a reasonable explanation that makes more sense than the government's version, I'll accept that version.
Thanks to those who answered my questions seriously and without resorting to school yard name-calling.
some friendly advice, whenever a twoofer makes or uses terms like "The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes "bullshit! no they were not! Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash'
5:28PM BST 11 Sep 2001
A COMBINATION of catastrophic events caused the downfall of the towering landmark that was built to withstand plane crashes.
The twin towers of the World Trade Centre have gazed out over Manhattan, head and shoulders above most other New York Buildings, for three decades. The revolutionary structures, each 110 storeys high, were built to withstand tremendous pressures and had already survived a 1993 terrorist bombing.
But the immense steel columns in the core - and around the perimeter supporting the enormous buildings - were not enough to prevent them slipping down into a rising fog of dust and debris which engulfed the streets around the city's financial district.
Plans for a world trade facility had been under consideration for many years, but momentum gathered in the late 50s with a site being finally fixed in 1962. The ground-breaking ceremony began four years later and the first tenants moved into one of the towers by the end of 1970, although the building had not been completed. They were declared officially open on April 4 1973.
British consulting engineer Professor Alastair Soane said today: "They were extremely robust buildings and built to withstand a tremendous amount.
"But this was of course a completely abnormal situation and one which would not have been envisaged by the people who built it. The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes.Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash' - Telegraph
Hmm...maybe I spoke too soon.
check the origin of said term and you'll find they all come from the same source: the truth movement.
that's not the point. when you say" no plane" hit wtc7 you are trying and failing to infer that nothing other than your imagined explosives did in wtc7 .but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?
NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damage the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence
in other words you're makin shut up.
I know it's a tough concept but the debris caused the fires that took out the column.
it's called the domino effect!
but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?No..plane hit wtc 7
NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence
So, did you see the pieces of det cord in the rubble of the building destroyed in the video?Oh yeah, Einstein. The entire building was rigged with radio controlled detonators. Yet no bombs went off when the fires continued to burn. You come up with these unbelievable stories and have nothing to back them up. You idiots always talk about how it looked like a CD yet you don't watch the videos of CD's and see the det cord in the rubble after the demolition? Jesus Christ you people are stupid. I notice you avoid 7Forever's threads. You're stupid but consider 7Forever too be too stupid?Asshole.
are you claiming you can show a video of an imploded building and identify the det cord ?? is that what you are claiming ??
hey major dumbfuckery the towers and wtc7 were mostly air!i suppose that if the planes were able to hit the buildings lower, say at the 5-20th floors, the buildings would have tipped over. The building collapsed pancake fashion just like physics says it would.
Yes ,falling through thousands of feet of concrete and steel is so much easier than falling through the air..what was I thinking...lol
the total amount of concrete and steel was many times less than the volume of air in the towers, so their mass was negligible.
btw thinking is not in your skillset!
